Rotary Wing Forum  

Go Back   Rotary Wing Forum > Rotorcraft > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16  
Old 06-11-2012, 05:13 PM
JEFF TIPTON's Avatar
JEFF TIPTON JEFF TIPTON is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: DICKSON, TN
Posts: 1,998
Default

The LPS 3 will leave behind a wax residue and can be reapplied as necessary. It can be removed with most cleaners for inspection. Just a thought.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-11-2012, 05:53 PM
bmoore2156's Avatar
bmoore2156 bmoore2156 is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Siletz, Or
Posts: 968
Send a message via AIM to bmoore2156
Default

Jeff, sounds like this stuff. This stuff doesn't work.
Why Boeshield T-9®?
Dear Consumer,

Thank you for your interest in our products.

Boeshield T-9® was developed and licensed by The Boeing Company to fill their need for a superior lubricant/protectant.

The formulation, based on a unique combination of solvents and waxes, is designed to penetrate metal pores and dissolve minor corrosion, then leave a resilient waxy coating that lasts for many months.

We began by successfully introducing Boeshield T-9® to the tough saltwater marine market for lubricating and protecting all metals. It works well on engines and deck hardware as well as electronics, batteries and wiring connections. It is non-conductive and will not cause short circuits.

For bicycle chains, T-9® has proven to be a tough, long lasting waterproof lubricant. Our sales keep growing every year despite many competitors.

On woodworking tool surfaces Boeshield T-9® recently topped all other surface treatments in Wood Magazine’s article on Rust Busters*. According to them: “Except for the section treated with Boeshield T-9® all sections have completely rusted over”. “There is only one choice for protectant as far as we’re concerned: Boeshield T-9®”.

We feel we have the best product of its type on the market. In fact, if you think you’ve found a better penetrating lubricant and protectant, let us know, and we will refund your purchase price.


® Trademark and Technology owned and licensed by
THE BOEING COMPANY
__________________
"Experimental" This means we are on the cutting edge of technology!
RAF 2000 w/ SH conversion
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-12-2012, 05:51 AM
Doug Riley's Avatar
Doug Riley Doug Riley is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,313
Default

Have you tried Paralketon? It's another waxy-greasy formulation used on seaplanes. Wicks or Aircraft Spruce shoud carry it. I'd stay away from paint.

Rod end bearings have been known to break thanks both to internal flaws and to side loading. At AEROTEC, I bought commercial rod-end bearings in bulk and had each one magnfluxed.

Aircraft-type rod ends have a soft-metal lining in the ring (banjo) housing. The ball rides on this lining. The commercial ones have no soft metal insert; they're steel-on-steel.

It's wise to stick with aircraft grade, and to use 3/8" shank bearings in the primary control system, despite what the published strength numbers say.

Try to cut the pushrods so that only a few threads of the shank are visibly above the locknut (i.e. the shank should engage the threaded sleeve in the tube deeply).

Make certain that the locknut is snugged down. Smokey Castner of Florida died from loss of control of his gyro, thanks to his omitting the locknuts altogether.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-12-2012, 11:30 PM
Greg Mitchell's Avatar
Greg Mitchell Greg Mitchell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,942
Default

G'Day Doug,

I have aircraft grade 1/4" rod ends on my Butterfly Monarch. When ever the topic comes up and 3/8" is recommended I get nervous.
There is some vibration associated with the Metro Launch System Pre-rotator if it is not operated as instructed. Occassionally I get it wrong and the vibes make me worry more.

Having said that, on the three variants of Butterfly and three types of blades and dsic sizes, 1/4" rod ends only have been used, as that is what comes from the factory, for the lighter models.

Doug I remember on another thread somewhere that you posted some general or average figures for the compressive load on the push rods. I cant find that thread.
Could you restate those numbers for me please.

I will try and get some new slugs turned up that will take 3/8" shank.

Thanks.

Mitch.
__________________
"What has become apparent, is that we still huddle together in groups that confirm our existing beliefs."
Virtual Revolution. 2010

Australia and New Zealand Licensed Importer/Manufacturer of Larry Neal's Butterfly Gyroplanes

www.thebutterflyllc.com
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-13-2012, 04:23 AM
bmoore2156's Avatar
bmoore2156 bmoore2156 is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Siletz, Or
Posts: 968
Send a message via AIM to bmoore2156
Default

Thanks guys for the info.
I suppose I will try these other products before paint...
Brad
__________________
"Experimental" This means we are on the cutting edge of technology!
RAF 2000 w/ SH conversion
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 06-13-2012, 05:22 AM
Steve Weir's Avatar
Steve Weir Steve Weir is offline
Dragonfly
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Baytown, TX
Posts: 275
Default

Brad someone was using "Sharkhide" coating on their gyro build. I have thought about using it after I replace the heims. Not sure if it will work well in this application but it is clear.http://www.sharkhide.com/
__________________
PRA# 41408
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-14-2012, 11:29 AM
Doug Riley's Avatar
Doug Riley Doug Riley is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,313
Default

Hi, Mitch: I don't have figures for the actual loads imposed on pushrods in flight. That number is going to vary all over the place, depending on the geometry of the joystick system and the head.

What I posted, I think, was the compressive (column) load that a typical pushrod will tolerate before buckling. It's not much -- a bit over 200 lb. for a 7/8" x. .058 6061-T6 tube long enough to accommodate a 5-foot prop. The tubes are, of course, much stronger in tension than they are in compression.

The push tubes called out on the Gyrobee are 9/16 x. .065 4130 steel, to be used with 1/4" female shank rod ends and stock AN male stems. The tubes themselves are some 20-30 pounds weaker than those typical 6061-T6 units in the critical compression direction. I would only sell finished rods made of 7/8 x .058 6061-T6, with 3/8 shank rod ends.

The Butterfly I've flown split the difference -- using 5/16" shank rod ends.

In my opinion, the control system is no place to be shaving ounces. I prefer a control system that can be used as a hoisting point for the whole gyro!
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-14-2012, 04:57 PM
Greg Mitchell's Avatar
Greg Mitchell Greg Mitchell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,942
Default

That was it.
Thanks very much Doug. I have locked that info into a word doc.

Cheers,

Mitch
__________________
"What has become apparent, is that we still huddle together in groups that confirm our existing beliefs."
Virtual Revolution. 2010

Australia and New Zealand Licensed Importer/Manufacturer of Larry Neal's Butterfly Gyroplanes

www.thebutterflyllc.com
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-14-2012, 05:55 PM
skier's Avatar
skier skier is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Riley View Post
Aircraft-type rod ends have a soft-metal lining in the ring (banjo) housing. The ball rides on this lining. The commercial ones have no soft metal insert; they're steel-on-steel.
Working in the bearing industry, I'm not sure what you're getting at here. There are a bunch of different styles of bearings (rod ends included). There are ones that have a fabric linings, as well as ones that are metal-on-metal. There are also ones with PTFE fibers "bonded" to the metal race. They all work in different applications and all three types can be designed for use in aircraft.

That being said, if you're worried about corrosion, what about looking at different metals? 17-4 and 13-8 are generally pretty decent as far as corrosion resistance goes and are used in places where salt-spray can be expected. You could probably find bearings made from these materials that would still be corrosion free decades from now.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-14-2012, 06:11 PM
Lee Scatt Lee Scatt is online now
Crash-test pilot
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Satellite Beach, FL USA
Posts: 824
Default

Thank You Jany, I am another small step closer and I appreciate your generosity.
Sharkhide is the ultimate for a "no-see-um" corrosion protectant coating. I witness it as withstanding Atlantic ocean abuse for at least two years with no re-application necessary.
__________________
Lee Scattergood
Satellite Beach, FL
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Ad Management plugin by RedTyger